640 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXIII. No. 852 



ment may be given, or do we wish to make 

 knowledge of plant life, its structures, 

 processes, habits and uses, the possession of 

 the people in general in order that they 

 may know more, enjoy more, or may more 

 eflEectively adapt plant life to their eco- 

 nomic uses? Do we wish to prepare stu- 

 dents who shall take up research in botany 

 to the end that unsolved problems may 

 have solution? Or have we any definite 

 purpose for botanical education other than 

 that since botany is a field which we have 

 found most interesting we wish to ' ' pass it 

 on" to others? 



The ends which we seek certainly should 

 receive the careful attention of all who are 

 engaged in general botanical instruction. 

 Research in botany is not the goal of gen- 

 eral botanical education, and botany can 

 not claim a place in the general curriculum 

 of the high school or college if its primary 

 aim is to prepare students for research in 

 botany. On the other hand, research is 

 perhaps the most important by-product of 

 general botanical instruction, since when 

 general courses of instruction are eiScient 

 there develop weU-grounded students who 

 desire to become investigators in the sub- 

 ject. 



The purpose must be more serious than 

 to give passing enjoyment, stimulate curi- 

 osity about plants, or to minister, as early 

 botanists sometimes said, to the emotional 

 nature of young ladies. There is great 

 need of development of a rigorous scientific 

 attitude toward plant phenomena. Plants 

 and their products are our constant com- 

 panions and there are certain fundamental 

 facts and principles that people should 

 know about them. If they learn these facts 

 and principles in a way that develops care 

 in observation, in experiment, and in proper 

 thinking, I believe there is also secured 

 enjoyment of plants and ability to make 

 economic use of them. This central foun- 



dation in method and content should be 

 best upon which to build research work. 

 It would seem also that research would find 

 a large number of worthy devotees if gen- 

 eral courses of instruction were presented 

 as broadly fundamental to the science, and 

 more significant in practical affairs. 



2. A second factor has to do with the 

 quality and preparation of the students 

 who present themselves in our college 

 courses. From an amount of data too lim- 

 ited for final conclusion, it seems that most 

 of the students who elect college courses 

 in botany have had no botany in secondary 

 schools. For some reasons, secondary 

 school courses seldom lead students to take 

 botany in college, or else college require- 

 ments prevent their doing so until they 

 have become engrossed with other lines of 

 work. Possibly the difficulty lies in ineffi- 

 cient courses or teaching in secondary 

 schools. These courses have been accused 

 of being too formal, too technical, too 

 closely limited to a special field of botany, 

 not sufficiently full of meaning to young 

 students. Secondary courses in botany 

 have also been acctised of being too difficult 

 — an accusation which I think is untrue. It 

 is not, for example, the inherent difficulty 

 of alternation of generations, but lack of 

 auj^ appreciable motive for studying it, which 

 makes it seem difficult. The structure and 

 workings of a steam engine or an automo- 

 bile are more difficult, but they are "go- 

 ing things" — dynamic — and students solve 

 their mysteries. If an appreciable motive 

 is put into secondary teaching of botany 

 its difficulties are solvable. 



Possibly some of the difficulty lies in the 

 fact that the different sciences are inco- 

 herent and intermittent in the high schools. 

 In a valuable recent investigation made by 

 an eastern biologist records were collected 

 from 276 high schools. Botany is taught 

 in 225 of them. It is distributed in the 



